Saturday, 18 December 2010

The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009), for an attack on Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.

Yet The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954 reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss.Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.

Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives:

“I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”

“It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.”

(Guardian, 2 August 1969.)

In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds:

“Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer ... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars ... All immigration must stop ... The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life.”

(India Mail 02.03.95).

Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.

Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published — “What Next In the Law.” The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. He wrote: "The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out." Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.

Since the rise of the New left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste.” It is united by central ideas like anti-White racism, Internationalism and abstract beliefs like social justice and progress where prejudice, discrimination are transcended. Their fantasy is flawed because these qualities are ineluctably part of human nature; far from transcending prejudice and discrimination, they have changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!

The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.

Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and is “intrinsically counter-majoritarian....should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.

Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people. However, there are clearly far more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments counter to our traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the majority. The judiciary are supposed to be independent from Parliament but some of them have shown themselves to be highly politicised with a clear anti- British agenda. This cannot be tolerated any longer. They have forfeited their right to be judges, in my opinion. During the Nuremberg trials the German judiciary who had enacted Nazi laws were prosecuted and in some cases executed for their crimes. Others were given very long prison sentences. In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, but now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”

The judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. This introduced Soviet techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations -
12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.

Recommendation 13 is even more mendacious: investigate “non-crimes”!!! This totalitarian device criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work totalitarian methods.

Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.

Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.

The Recommendation states:”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.”

All seventy recommendations were presented by BBC News in “Lawrence: Key Recommendations.”

Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”

The judiciary attack our society by undermining the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption , legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values.

In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family(anti?) judge.

The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.

The feminist/communist hate campaign against the traditional heterosexual nuclear family has been an ongoing thing since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.

Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.

Ironic that the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges fully endorse the very pro-father Sharia courts, given that if Muslims take over this country, the 'British' judiciary will be among the promoters.

They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.

As part of the elites Islamification programme, many Judges are campaigning for the introduction of Shari law. In December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.

In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.

Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights

In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”

Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce. Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? Again we see the appeasement to islam leading to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the liberals would like to think it would.

Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the Prime Minister. I remember Tony Benn at some point enquiring what criteria were used when judges were selected. The whole process was then apparently secret - and I'm sure it's as bad or worse now. As you say, saxonian, it's no surprise we have such useless rubbish in charge of "justice". Maybe there is something to be said for the US system of elected judges (except then there would be financed campaigns by vested interest groups in favour of the 'correct' judges).

The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.

In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior. I think it’s more accurate to call it Cultural Nazism against White heterosexual males.

Our nation was our extended family and the embodiment of our cultural hierarchy that had treated other races as less than us, but this is our country. The nation had protected individuals as part of a bigger community, was replaced by interest groups defined by group identities - race, gender and orientation and religion other than Christianity which was replaced by multi-racialism.
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn once pleasant Britain into a world centre for terrorists. They use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!

They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.

The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back too their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.

Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.

Some terrorists were protected by the judiciary - Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!

In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.

In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”

Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is a classic of sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.

Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!

The alliance between Western elites and Islam is so strong that as well as changing our culture by Islamification, the judiciary are now breaking down the Jewish community. They promote Sharia Law while making Judaism illegal under the totalitarian Race Relations Act of 1976.

The Jewish Free School school in Brent, is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. The boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith. The admission of a boy “M” was rejected because “M”'s mother became Jewish by conversion, after M was born. According to Orthodox rules, Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.

The Supreme Court decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him. Judge Lord Rodger, said the decision "… produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools…"

The judges have undermined our way of life, protected terrorists and are now attacking Jewish people to Islamify Britain. This is the nexus of Western elites and Muslims against White and Jewish communities known as Eurabia.

Sunday, 5 December 2010

By There is an ideological muddle which impedes the protection of our people and we must find the right standpoint. Some influenced by university conditioning think it is is a rationalist formula written down in a book like Das Kapital or Mein Kampf but our patriotic way of thinking grows out of emotion and the need for numinous things in life rather than universal abstractions. The way to develop a new world view is to gather examples from the world around us, of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration, then collate it and our version of reality begins to form.

We must link to our patriotic traditions and develop from there, but with a more suitable economic system to give our people priority in their own country. Many patriotic Conservatives, social and cultural, fought against mass immigration throughout the 50s and 60s. M.P.s like Cyril Osborne who began his campaign against open - door immigration in 1954 and Norman Pannell in 1956. Even Churchill prepared a Bill to control immigration but it was dropped when he had to relinquish the premiership because of deteriorating health. He also wanted the Tories to fight the General Election with the slogan ”Keep England White.” We have the famous example of Enoch Powell.(1)

The Conservative party was a “National” Conservative party which put the national interest first, not the Global economy. We are their natural successors and must position ourselves as such. This would give supporters a secure base to argue from with abundant role models and quotes from our history and that would strengthen their conviction which would impress their hearers more. People follow the dominant elites. Even those who agree with us vote for one of the dominant parties and a renewed conviction on our part would counter that. It is a mistake to lament they have not woken up when we are not putting our case with enough confidence. This is a starting point and would be adapted to deal with contemporary circumstances.
I have written before that we need to make an accommodation with Jewish communities and other groups who are in danger like Hindus and Sikhs but we must make it clear that this is our country and our people take priority. We are being invaded by a common enemy and the elites have adopted anti-Semitism as part of their surrender. Jewish people tend to regard “White Christians as a danger to them but must transcend the Ghetto Mentality and understand that the Muslims hate them first and they are under attack in France and Malmo, Sweden and when emasculated pricks like Cameron and Milliband get Turkey in the EU Jews will be openly persecuted! Mass immigration has changed everything and old enmities are no longer feasible. About 1 in 8 of the population of Southern Ireland are asylum seekers so the internecine wars in the North are not appropriate during an invasion. (2)

Do not think everyone in the media or the Conservative Party is an implacable enemy. Many agree with us and even have useful information about what the elites in politics and the media have planned but they stay away because of the Holocaust denying leaders.
The elites use the media and Equalities Commission to makes us like them or destroy us and we have to allow ethnics in but not adopt civic nationalism. There is a tendency for those who lament our lack of progress to think the situation hopeless and think conforming to the ideology of the elites but you do not win by capitulation. This shows they misunderstand the aims of the elites which is to replace Whites with immigrants. (3)

Simple or self-loathing people say “So what?”. “It doesn't matter if different people take over!” This shows a failure to understand how people behave. They think it will be painless like handing the baton on in a relay race.
It was common to hear liberals say:” We did it to them, now they can do it to us” though they did not themselves live in it. That submissive attitude still dominates the elites.”(4)
We must convey the urgency of this situation not try to be nice. We must respond in kind to the anti British propagandists in the media and be more urgent in our defending our children.

The vile abuse and the police and media cover-up of the murder of Charlene Downes shows how the elites are surrendering our young people to Muslims. She was a 14 year-old Blackpool schoolgirl who went missing in 2003. It is thought that older Muslim men who were illegally having sex with her murdered her, chopped her up and sold her to Blackpool people in kebabs!A trial in 2007 collapsed. The Independent Police Complaint Commissions decided covert surveillance was "handled poorly and unprofessionally", and police were forced to apologise.(5)
In Rochdale Nine men were jailed after a 14-year-old White girl was preyed upon and forced into prostitution. The child was fed vodka after she was found wandering the streets and repeatedly raped by gangs of Muslim men. The convictions for various offences, including sexual activity with a child, controlling a child prostitute, facilitating child prostitution and paying for sexual services with a child. She had to testify in separate trials involving the men and was eventually excused further evidence after a third hearing when psychologists ruled there were fears for her mental and physical well-being.

The submissive attitude of children to Muslim predators is inculcated by the state at school. Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, persecuted Jodie Stott, a 14-year old schoolgirl, who was arrested by police for “racism.” She had wisely refused to sit with a group of Asian students because three, who had recently immigrated here, could not speak English. She was kept in a police cell for three-and-a-half hours after being reported by her teachers: "They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken," said Codie.
Totalitarian headteacher Dr Antony Edkins: "An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark by one student towards a group of Asian students new to the school and new to the country." We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards people and pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form." Edkins and the other teachers are persecuting this young girl in her own country for wanting to be able to understand her school companions.

The same Education Authority had a ten-year-old boy prosecuted for allegedly calling an 11-year-old mixed race pupil a 'Paki' and 'Bin Laden' in a playground argument at a primary school in Irlam.
District Judge Jonathan Finestein said the decision to prosecute showed "how stupid the whole system is getting" and was himself attacked by teaching union leaders for "feeding a pernicious agenda" that aided the BNP.
In 1965 Peter Griffiths Conservative MP for Smethwick showed great wisdom when he called for special classes to teach immigrants English and was accused by progressives of wanting to start apartheid in schools!

The Daily Mail reported that a Catholic schoolgirl was labelled ‘truant’ by her teachers for refusing to dress as a Muslim for a school field trip to a mosque. Staff the 14-year-old pupils to dress in headscarf, wear trousers or leggings and keep her arms covered for the compulsory visit to the mosque after it was arranged to promote ‘community cohesion.’ Amy Owen refused.
Totalitarian headmaster Peter Lee wrote the visit was “as compulsory as a geography field trip. There are two reasons for these visits. One is that the scheme of work in religious studies REQUIRES children to have knowledge and understanding of other world religions.”
‘The second is that the school is REQUIRED to promote tolerance respect and understanding. This is known as community cohesion. A failure to do this could result in an unwelcome inspection judgement”. Around ten others in year 9 classes refused to dress as Muslims and were marked down in the truanting register. It is clear from this how the word tolerance is used in an ideological rather than grammatical sense.: the state through its institutions is trying to enforce submission to Islam.

We must start highlighting the religious apartheids enshrined in Islamic Sharia law and what would happen to British women if decadent elites like Dame Butler-Sloss and Prince Charles succeed in introducing it and, especially, the legalised sexual abuse of children; the cruelty to animals.
The surrender to Islam and the new anti-Semitism is taught in schools. A Government funded study in April 2007 found that Schools are abandoning teaching the Holocaust in history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils whose do not believe the Holocaust happened and are frightened to teach the 11th century Crusades when Christians armies fought Muslim armies for Jerusalem because a different version is taught in mosques. They also teach a version of the development of slavery, which omits the much longer and harsher Muslim slave trade.

MPs also want children given relationship advice 'in context' to make informed decisions about when to have sex. Many Muslims will opt out of this as it will be teaching homosexuality as equal to heterosexual relations. This ignores the essential human duty to re-produce. Propagandising homosexuality is a threat to our demographics.
The State collects DNA records of children as young as five, and has been secretly taking their fingerprints since 2001. Schools take their fingerprints which is replacing library cards. When working on a crime police have access to the children’s fingerprints but parents are not told. To remove the prints takes professional cleansing. The schools, education authorities and the Government say it is difficult to convert this code back though not impossible and a computer technie could re- create the original fingerprints for identity theft.

In July 2006 The Observer reported that British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world. Under proposed laws being drawn up secretly by the European Commission’s ‘Article Six’ committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union’s 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport. The Home Office wants to include children in its biometric passport scheme and automatically transfer their details and fingerprints to the new national identity database when they are 16. The Government is underhandedly building a genetic database. Data has been used for genetic research without consent, including attempts to predict "ethnic appearance" from DNA profiles.

A nation's manners, morals, religions, political institutions and social structure, are inherited from ancestors and develop from the character of the people at that time.
Government from Brussels, economic control by global corporations and Afro-Asian colonization is part of the progressives' new dream for an ideal future, but in practice it disinherits our children of community and association with their own kind which we are duty bound to preserve for them.

Throughout history wars have been fought for territory and by allowing newcomers to stake claims, our emasculated ‘elite’ are encouraging them to fight for yet more. In The Territorial Imperative Robert Ardry explains how much having a country of their own has boosted the confidence of Israelis, but our rulers are handing our ancestral homeland to invaders and protecting their welfare over and above that of our own people.
Our views derive from an emotional and instinctive relationship with our people and our territory. It is more profound than rationalising or adopting an artificial blueprint for a Utopian world because it grows from natural, human instinct and emotion.
To give favourable treatment to aliens over our own people, as the fifth Marquess of Salisbury described them “our kith and kin,” is morally evil.
Look at data from the Office of National Statistics (which doesn’t take into account the births to mothers born here) then look at your sons and daughters and ask, ”Am I betraying my own children? Where will they live and work?”

We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them. We also have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that.
Our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. Men and women are distinctive sexual beings within their inherited collective identity. We belong to our kin, above strangers, and this affects the type of community we create.

Edmund Burke’s famous definition of society is that it is a continuous community of the living, the dead and those who are yet to be born. Each man and woman is part of a larger body. The individual dies, but descendants live on.
We have positive benefits to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of a rival community. You only need look at the names of graduates from medical and law schools to see how our young are being dispossessed. We would offer British children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders.